1.
Problem Definition or Opportunity Statement:
“ To Evaluate Repayment Option for a Self Loading Concrete Mixer"
2.
Development of Feasible Alternatives:
As a project
engineer, I have been asked to evaluate the two different repayment options
for a new self loading concrete mixer. I have two alternatives available A and B.
for a new self loading concrete mixer. I have two alternatives available A and B.
a. Alternative (A)
b. Alternative (B)
3.
Development of Outcomes of Each Alternatives:
The outcome for each alternatives is to have convert the cash flow series to a present value PV
4.
Selection of Acceptable Criteria:
The criteria used to
benchmark the selection of " best" alternative is higer NPV
5.
Analysis and Comparison of The Outcome from Each Alternatives:
6.
Selection of the Preferred Alternatives :
Selection of the preferred alternative is to select the alternative with higher NPV.
Alternative (B) is the preferred repayment option.
Alternative (B) is the preferred repayment option.
7.
Performance monitoring and Evaluation Results:
References:
1.
AACE International. Skills &
Knowledge of Cost Engineering. 5th Edition Revised”, 2007. Morgantown , WV .
2.
Sullivan William. Wicks M, Elin.
Koelling C, Patrick. Engineering Economic,
Fourteenth edition. Pearson International Edition, 2009.
Nice posting Reginald, not bad.... You picked an excellent problem statement and you pretty much followed our step by step process.
ReplyDeleteBecause you also worked smart, not hard, you can take credit not only for your W2 blog but also one question from Chapter 5 or Chapter 6 in your Engineering Economy.
My question to you- for step 7 how could you track to see if this was or was not a good decision after you made it? How did you come up with the 11% interest rate? What happens if that rate should change + or -?
What I suggest for future blog postings would be to turn to Chapter 5 in your Engineering Economy. Instead of using ONLY NPV, take the same problem statement and for W3, apply ERR, IRR and Break Even Analysis. See if you come up with the same results. Also take some time to explain the strengths and weaknesses between using NPV, IRR, ERR and BE Analysis.
Also, I am growing increasingly frustrated that people are not citing your work properly using APA format and that I expect a MINIMUM of three references. Go here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/08/
Scroll down the page to the appropriate reference you are using-
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In A. Editor & B. Editor (Eds.), Title of book (pages of chapter). Location: Publisher.
Does your references look like this? If not, why not....
Bottom line- great case study, OK use of our step by step process, but very weak on citations.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta